Rural Britain Under Siege: Councils Outlaw Shouting, Camping, and Even Metal Detecting
Table of Contents
A wave of Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) is transforming the English countryside into a zone of increasing restrictions, sparking outrage from civil liberties groups and outdoor enthusiasts.
The traditional freedoms of rural life are rapidly eroding as local authorities introduce and extend sweeping bans on activities ranging from the seemingly innocuous – like shouting or stroking a pony – to long-held countryside pursuits such as angling and metal detecting. These measures, ostensibly designed to manage antisocial behavior and protect the environment, are being criticized as heavy-handed and disproportionate.
The Rise of the PSPO
The Manifesto Club, a leading civil liberties organization, has been at the forefront of documenting the proliferation of these Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs). According to the group, councils are increasingly utilizing the legislation as a “blanket prohibition” to criminalize behaviors that are not genuinely antisocial. “PSPOs were meant to target activities harming local quality of life but they’re increasingly used as a blanket prohibition to criminalise activities and behaviour that no reasonable person would consider antisocial,” explained Josie Appleton, director of the Manifesto Club.
The impact is a fragmented landscape of prohibitions across England. Elmbridge borough council, for example, has outlawed angling during dawn and dusk, imposing a ban between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. In north-east Lincolnshire, all metal detecting now requires prior authorization from the local authority.
From Shouting to Swimming: A Patchwork of Bans
The scope of the restrictions is startlingly broad. Councils have introduced PSPOs banning shouting in remote areas, urination in designated coastal zones across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and even possessing items that could pose a fire risk in the Peak District. Activities like open water swimming have been criminalized in Salford and parts of Somerset, while pitching tents or sleeping on beaches is now prohibited in multiple coastal areas.
The bans extend to essential safety equipment. Some councils are prohibiting camping stoves, vital for outdoor safety, and removing exemptions for supervised use by educational and youth groups. “Carrying a stove on the hills is a safety requirement,” stated one local walker who works with youth groups. “These bans make it unlawful for young people to prepare food or stay warm in poor weather – putting them at risk.” Appleton warned that these restrictions risk criminalizing young people and school groups engaged in responsible outdoor learning.
A Loss of Trust and Access
Critics argue that the new wave of PSPOs represents a fundamental shift in how public space is governed, moving away from a presumption of freedom towards a culture of control. “This isn’t about protecting sensitive sites – it’s about controlling harmless behaviour,” Appleton asserted.
The Right to Roam campaign echoes these concerns, advocating for a rules-based access system similar to that of Scotland, with a comprehensive code of conduct. Jon Moses, of the Right to Roam, emphasized the need for a system that “reflects how people use the countryside, sets clear limits on irresponsible behaviour and helps build consensus on real issues.”
The lack of transparency and public consultation surrounding these orders is also a major point of contention. In the Peak District, the orders were reportedly passed with minimal public input and without any published rural or equality impact assessments.
One resident of rural Kent recounted encountering a notice threatening a £1,000 fine for engaging in 12 activities, including shouting, swearing, drinking alcohol, and using a catapult. “I was in the middle of nowhere and suddenly there was this sign screaming at me about all the things I couldn’t do,” she said. “It’s ‘ban everything’, bureaucratic overreach; an outrageous policing of everyday behaviour.”
Councils Defend Their Actions
Local authorities defend the PSPOs as necessary measures to address legitimate concerns. A spokesperson for Canterbury city council stated that all their PSPOs are “fully consulted on” and enjoy “the support of the vast majority of the public.” Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council indicated that the orders can be “modified in specific areas, for versatile enforcement.”
Other councils cited specific issues as justification for the bans. An Elmbridge council spokesperson explained that an increase in anglers had led to reports of littering and human waste. Dorset council stated that its PSPOs were introduced following public consultation, while North East Lincolnshire council noted that applications for metal detecting permits continue to be received, suggesting responsible use within designated areas. Cumberland council affirmed its “zero tolerance for environmental harm.”
Despite these justifications, campaigners maintain that the PSPOs represent a worrying trend towards the criminalization of ordinary behavior and a retreat from the principle that the countryside belongs to everyone. They argue that these orders treat people “not as stewards, but as problems to be prosecuted.”
